David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote: >Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote: >>At this point, I am inspired to call "yasid" on the story about the >>martian bartender who couldn't tell how he mixed a drink, and whenever >>he slowed down to try to watch himself to see how much of each ingredient >>he added, it came out horrid. Finally had to resort to high-speed cameras. >>This was in aid of creating a robot to do the mixing.
>Um ... Have read it ... Asimov I think?
(No, someone else got it, a Boucher story. But yes, I'd read it.)
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
On Nov 4, 6:48 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote: > >At this point, I am inspired to call "yasid" on the story about the > >martian bartender who couldn't tell how he mixed a drink, and whenever > >he slowed down to try to watch himself to see how much of each ingredient > >he added, it came out horrid. Finally had to resort to high-speed cameras. > >This was in aid of creating a robot to do the mixing.
> Um ... Have read it ... Asimov I think?
I already posted the correct answer. But you were making a joke, right?
Wayne Throop wrote: > : Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> > : This may be where the problem lies... I can't really grasp the > : difference between how a voiced and unvoiced th sound. So when you > : say "try saying "thing" with a voiced th", I can't even comprehend > : what it should sound like, much less that it should sound strange.
> Well... consider the words "thee" and "three". Say them a couple of > times repeated: thee-thee-thee, three-three-three. Now, start to say one > of them, and stop before you get to the second phoneme, drawing out > the first phoneme. You should (or perhaps better, "it may be that you > would") feel the difference between starting to say "the" and holding the > initial sound, and starting to say "three" and holding the initial sound. > That difference (if you note it) is "voicing". It's the same as the > difference between "p" and "b". You can also say "p-p-p" and "b-b-b". > Basically, you're relaxing some muscles in your neck that pull the vocal > chords out of the way of the airflow to "voice" (or, cause your larnyx > to buzz) the th-in-thee and the b, but not the th-in-three, or the p.
> You can also note that the tongue and lip positions of th-in-the > and th-in-three are the same, and likewise the tongue and lip positions > in p and b are the same. The only difference is the mysterious "voicing".
> At this point, I am inspired to call "yasid" on the story about the > martian bartender who couldn't tell how he mixed a drink, and whenever > he slowed down to try to watch himself to see how much of each ingredient > he added, it came out horrid. Finally had to resort to high-speed cameras. > This was in aid of creating a robot to do the mixing.
> : The Adam's apple trick has shown me that they _feel_ different, but > : that doesn't translate to sounding different.
> Oh, well, how they *sound*. Hm. Well, go to wictionary, and click on > the audio demos for the words "thee" and "three". Listen to one a few > repeats, then switch to the other. You should note that one of the words > "buzzes" at the very start, and one does not; it sort of hisses instead.
> : (And is probably being made more difficult because the ng in thing > : makes the same sort of buzzy feel as the th in they, so the words as a > : whole have the same sort of feel to them.)
> Try "thee" and "three", then. But note that in *all* the examples, > thing, their, they and even the and theme, the vowels are voiced, so > they will all have a buzz to them somewhere in the pronunciation.
> However... what do you think, is the th-in-theme voiced, or unvoiced?
> Or... try "thy" and "thigh", as somebody pointed out elsethread.
Thy and thigh work, quite possibly because if it didn't they would be the same sound. They and thing I think are just too different for it to work as well with that pairing. (Or, to put it simpler, I can hear the difference in thy and thigh, and yet still don't "hear" the difference in they and thing. I can sorta feel it, but hear... not so much.) And trying to puzzle it out, it is thing that is messing it up. I can figure out that they maps to thy... it's not as clear to me that thing maps to thigh.
Don Aitken wrote: > On 4 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0500, wdst...@panix.com (William December > Starr) wrote:
>> In article <Lg3exJjFYE8KF...@parkhead.demon.co.uk>, >> Jacey Bedford <lookin...@nospam.invalid> said:
>>> William December Starr <wdst...@panix.com> writes
>>>> I just said "You've got your thing, they've got their thing" out >>>> loud a few times. The pronunciation of the 'th' in the last two >>>> words neither sounds different to my ears nor feels different to >>>> my tongue and teeth. >>> Are you English? I'm puzzled as to how folks can think these two >>> sounds are anywhere close to interchangeable. >> Raised from age 1.5 or so in downstate New York, then moved to the >> Cambridge/Boston MA area at age 17, have lived here ever since (34+ >> years).
> Your problem is that your assume that anybody can hear differences in > pronunciation. This is not so. It needs, if not necessarily formal > training, at least some practice. It is a matter of common experience > among those who take an interest in such things (you don't have to be > a linguist) that a great many people, wherever they were raised, > completely fail to recognise even marked differences when they are not > significant in a language or dialect which they know. Quite often they > will persist is asying "there is no difference" even when it has been > pointed out and demonstrated. I became aware of this through learning > by experience that I am particularly bad at it.
I remember being amazed when I ran across people who don't hear a difference between "death" and "deaf". They would continually say "death" for deaf, and when I would say "You mean deaf?" they would just look at me and say "that's what I said... death." It was an odd sensation.
: Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> : Thy and thigh work, quite possibly because if it didn't they would be : the same sound. They and thing I think are just too different for it : to work as well with that pairing. (Or, to put it simpler, I can hear : the difference in thy and thigh, and yet still don't "hear" the : difference in they and thing. I can sorta feel it, but hear... not : so much.)
Hm. Possibly it would help to try to put the wrong sound on the opposite word. I mean sure, if you can't hear the difference, it's a bit of a conundrum how to start the word with the wrong sound... but try starting out saying "the" or "thy", and change your mind and say "ing" after you've got the "th" out of the way. Or, merely start saying "the" and stop after the th, holding the sound; it's one of those you can elongate, like an s or a z. Then do the same with thing. It should come out completely different, and if you stop and just keep producing the sound, it may be slow enough to catch the difference where it wouldn't be catchable "in the wild" so to speak.
Note that this may be entirely non-trivial. Introspecting to that extent is like asking a centipede to concentrate on walking... or me to concentrate on touch-typing. Instant brainfreeze. But, eh, it might work.
Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 6:48 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote: >> Wayne Throop <thro...@sheol.org> wrote: >> >At this point, I am inspired to call "yasid" on the story about the >> >martian bartender who couldn't tell how he mixed a drink, and whenever >> >he slowed down to try to watch himself to see how much of each ingredient >> >he added, it came out horrid. Finally had to resort to high-speed cameras. >> >This was in aid of creating a robot to do the mixing.
>> Um ... Have read it ... Asimov I think?
>I already posted the correct answer. But you were making a joke, right?
I can't read the entire newsgroup at once, though sometimes it may seem like that's what I'm doing. And I've found through long experience that "read everything, mark unread the ones I want to reply to, and go back and reply only when I'm fully caught up" Does Not Work for me for multiple reasons, at least one of which is technical.
So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me at that point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, yes.
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
On Nov 5, 2:46 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me at that > point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, yes.
Why would the alcohol be a tipoff? I didn't know Asimov imposed a moral code on his characters. The space sailors in "The Callistan Menace" enjoyed a good stiff drink of Martian Jabra water, smuggled aboard against Navy regulations.
Oh, I get it. You're thinking of Asimov's First Law of Robotics. An Asimovian robot couldn't tend bar because that would involve harming humans. Good point. Or is it? Would it be OK if the clientele were just Martians and Venusians? I'm not sure how aliens are classified for Three Laws purposes. The only Asimovian robots vs. aliens stories I can recall offhand is "Victory Unintentional", and I don't think the issue comes up there.
Butch Malahide wrote: > On Nov 5, 2:46 am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me >> at that point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, >> yes.
> Why would the alcohol be a tipoff? I didn't know Asimov imposed a > moral code on his characters. The space sailors in "The Callistan > Menace" enjoyed a good stiff drink of Martian Jabra water, smuggled > aboard against Navy regulations.
And the space travelers in I'm in Marsport Without Hilda took mind-altering drugs (most of them, anyway.)
>> So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me at that >> point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, yes.
>Why would the alcohol be a tipoff? I didn't know Asimov imposed a >moral code on his characters. The space sailors in "The Callistan >Menace" enjoyed a good stiff drink of Martian Jabra water, smuggled >aboard against Navy regulations.
>Oh, I get it. You're thinking of Asimov's First Law of Robotics. An >Asimovian robot couldn't tend bar because that would involve harming >humans. Good point. Or is it?
The harm done by any individual drink is imperceptible (and usually nonexistent). A robot does have to believe that what they are doing is actually dangerous before the First Law comes into play.
In article <f1c7d372-d37a-456a-89c6-8bccc4b14...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Nov 5, 2:46=A0am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote: >> So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me at that >> point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, yes.
>Why would the alcohol be a tipoff? I didn't know Asimov imposed a >moral code on his characters. The space sailors in "The Callistan >Menace" enjoyed a good stiff drink of Martian Jabra water, smuggled >aboard against Navy regulations.
>Oh, I get it. You're thinking of Asimov's First Law of Robotics. An >Asimovian robot couldn't tend bar because that would involve harming >humans. Good point. Or is it? Would it be OK if the clientele were >just Martians and Venusians? I'm not sure how aliens are classified >for Three Laws purposes.
I'd say that aliens would not be considered "human" for Three Laws purposes. However, the Three Laws stories seemed to be set in a universe in which humans were it for intelligent life.
Besides that, if you look at Solaria, the definition of "human" was getting whittled away at, coming to mean "people like me".
>for Three Laws purposes. The only Asimovian robots vs. aliens stories >I can recall offhand is "Victory Unintentional", and I don't think the >issue comes up there.
I don't think that ZZ-1, ZZ-2, or ZZ-Top were Three Laws robots.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder". It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
In article <hct02a$kj...@panix3.panix.com>, William December Starr <wdst...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <KsLE0A.2...@kithrup.com>, >goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) said: >> (If you're going to continue to assert that the th in "thy" is the >> same as the th in "thigh", I will simply start laughing.)
>How can I continue to assert something which I have never asserted >at all?
You asserted that the sound beginning "thing" is the same as that beginning "their", which is functionally equivalent.
-- David Goldfarb |"In the fifties, people responded well to goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | authoritative disembodied voices." goldf...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K
In article <hcsj39$ih...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >I've lived >in California way too long to bother -- the yahoos here call the fruit >an ORrange instead of an AAHrange, and can't hear the difference >between Mary, merry, and marry.
I lived in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area for nearly all my life, and my dialect is "Mary is merry is not marry".
-- David Goldfarb |"To summarize the summary of the summary: goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu | People are a problem." goldf...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams
> : Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> > : You can't really count that second one because the vowel is so different > : - I think this applies to all the -the/-th verb/noun pairs like bathe/bath.
> Huh? The way I pronounce them they seem nigh-identical "ee" sounds. > Just about the *only* difference in the way I say them is the voicing > of the final "th". Hm. I suppose the fact that in "teeth" I have to chop > off voicing, and in "teethe" I don't, will make the vowel seem different, > but I think that's mostly illusion.
Perhaps the same vowel or at least near enough, but the length (ie the time it takes to say it) is quite a bit longer for me in "teethe". --
Rebecca Rice wrote: > Don Aitken wrote: >> On 4 Nov 2009 01:44:00 -0500, wdst...@panix.com (William December >> Starr) wrote:
>>> In article <Lg3exJjFYE8KF...@parkhead.demon.co.uk>, >>> Jacey Bedford <lookin...@nospam.invalid> said:
>>>> William December Starr <wdst...@panix.com> writes
>>>>> I just said "You've got your thing, they've got their thing" out >>>>> loud a few times. The pronunciation of the 'th' in the last two >>>>> words neither sounds different to my ears nor feels different to >>>>> my tongue and teeth. >>>> Are you English? I'm puzzled as to how folks can think these two >>>> sounds are anywhere close to interchangeable. >>> Raised from age 1.5 or so in downstate New York, then moved to the >>> Cambridge/Boston MA area at age 17, have lived here ever since (34+ >>> years).
>> Your problem is that your assume that anybody can hear differences in >> pronunciation. This is not so. It needs, if not necessarily formal >> training, at least some practice. It is a matter of common experience >> among those who take an interest in such things (you don't have to be >> a linguist) that a great many people, wherever they were raised, >> completely fail to recognise even marked differences when they are not >> significant in a language or dialect which they know. Quite often they >> will persist is asying "there is no difference" even when it has been >> pointed out and demonstrated. I became aware of this through learning >> by experience that I am particularly bad at it.
> I remember being amazed when I ran across people who don't hear a > difference between "death" and "deaf". They would continually say > "death" for deaf, and when I would say "You mean deaf?" they would just > look at me and say "that's what I said... death." It was an odd sensation.
My grandmother used to pronounce "awkward" as "awkud". We would try to get her to put the second W in, but she always thought she was saying it anyway.
On Nov 5, 6:23 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Wayne Throop wrote: > > :: thy/thigh teeth/teethe
> > : Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> > > : You can't really count that second one because the vowel is so different > > : - I think this applies to all the -the/-th verb/noun pairs like bathe/bath.
> > Huh? The way I pronounce them they seem nigh-identical "ee" sounds. > > Just about the *only* difference in the way I say them is the voicing > > of the final "th". Hm. I suppose the fact that in "teeth" I have to chop > > off voicing, and in "teethe" I don't, will make the vowel seem different, > > but I think that's mostly illusion.
> Perhaps the same vowel or at least near enough, but the length (ie the > time it takes to say it) is quite a bit longer for me in "teethe".
What happens if you mix them up, i.e., combine the "ee" from "teeth" with the "th" from "teethe" (or vice versa)? Does the result sound more like "teeth" or "teethe"? I'm guessing the vowel will turn out to be more important in determining which word you hear.
:: Perhaps the same vowel or at least near enough, but the length (ie :: the time it takes to say it) is quite a bit longer for me in "teethe".
: What happens if you mix them up, i.e., combine the "ee" from "teeth" : with the "th" from "teethe" (or vice versa)? Does the result sound : more like "teeth" or "teethe"? I'm guessing the vowel will turn out : to be more important in determining which word you hear.
Definitely not for me. Prolong the 'ee' as much as you like, but if the final 'th' is unvoiced, it's a noun. Make it as short as you like, but voice the 'th', and it's a verb to my ear.
I expect the 'ee' is a bit longer in teethe because 'ee' is voiced, and so is the 'th'. Whereas in teeth, you have to cut off the voicing to start the 'th', so indeeed you clip 'ee' short. YMMV.
> In article <f1c7d372-d37a-456a-89c6-8bccc4b14...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Nov 5, 2:46=A0am, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote: > >> So I hadn't seen the correct answer yet. It did seem Asimovy to me at that > >> point, though perhaps the alcohol should've been a tipoff, yes.
> >Why would the alcohol be a tipoff? I didn't know Asimov imposed a > >moral code on his characters. The space sailors in "The Callistan > >Menace" enjoyed a good stiff drink of Martian Jabra water, smuggled > >aboard against Navy regulations.
> >Oh, I get it. You're thinking of Asimov's First Law of Robotics. An > >Asimovian robot couldn't tend bar because that would involve harming > >humans. Good point. Or is it? Would it be OK if the clientele were > >just Martians and Venusians? I'm not sure how aliens are classified > >for Three Laws purposes.
> I'd say that aliens would not be considered "human" for Three Laws > purposes. However, the Three Laws stories seemed to be set in a > universe in which humans were it for intelligent life.
Mostly, yes. Unless the story required otherwise.
(Human residents of Mars would be "Martians", however.)
As for allowing a robot to serve alcohol, you could tell the robot it's a vitamin. And humans do seem to feel better after consuming it. A whole lot better. Some of them start singing.
> Besides that, if you look at Solaria, the definition of "human" > was getting whittled away at, coming to mean "people like me".
> >for Three Laws purposes. The only Asimovian robots vs. aliens stories > >I can recall offhand is "Victory Unintentional", and I don't think the > >issue comes up there.
> I don't think that ZZ-1, ZZ-2, or ZZ-Top were Three Laws robots.
I think they were, but they were still so scary that when someone suggested that their customary acronym-to-nickname should be "Sissy", it fell very flat. And yes, aliens weren't people.
David Goldfarb wrote: > In article <hcsj39$ih...@news.eternal-september.org>, > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I've lived > > in California way too long to bother -- the yahoos here call the > > fruit an ORrange instead of an AAHrange, and can't hear the > > difference between Mary, merry, and marry.
> I lived in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area for nearly all my life, > and my dialect is "Mary is merry is not marry".
St. Louis is MIMIM, but CINC[1].
1. That's "caught" is not "cot" for those unfamiliar with the initialism.
-- Day 277 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
sigvaldi wrote: > On Nov 4, 12:42 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 1:42 pm,sigvaldi<sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 7:04 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 3, 6:57 am,sigvaldi<sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 3, 9:54 am, goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The alphabet of Old English included letters for the > > > > > > initial sounds of "thing" and "they": two different ones, > > > > > > called "thorn" and "edh".
> > > > > The Icelandic alphabet does too, Þ og Ð
> > > > What a coincidence! They're even the same two letters! > > > Not on my screen :)
> > I did not mean they were only one letter. I meant that they were the > > same two letters as are used in Old English.
> > John Savard
> Yes, I know :) Joking aside, Old Norse and Old English are similar on > a large number of points, I belive I can read Old English better (from > a knowledge of modern Icelandic and modern English) than many speakers > of English today.
How well can you read Frisian?
-- Dan Goodman Journal at: dsgood.livejournal.com dsgood.dreamwidth.org dsgood.insanejournal.com
Butch Malahide wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:23 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote: >> Wayne Throop wrote: >>> :: thy/thigh teeth/teethe >>> : Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> >>> : You can't really count that second one because the vowel is so different >>> : - I think this applies to all the -the/-th verb/noun pairs like bathe/bath. >>> Huh? The way I pronounce them they seem nigh-identical "ee" sounds. >>> Just about the *only* difference in the way I say them is the voicing >>> of the final "th". Hm. I suppose the fact that in "teeth" I have to chop >>> off voicing, and in "teethe" I don't, will make the vowel seem different, >>> but I think that's mostly illusion. >> Perhaps the same vowel or at least near enough, but the length (ie the >> time it takes to say it) is quite a bit longer for me in "teethe".
> What happens if you mix them up, i.e., combine the "ee" from "teeth" > with the "th" from "teethe" (or vice versa)? Does the result sound > more like "teeth" or "teethe"? I'm guessing the vowel will turn out to > be more important in determining which word you hear.
If I use a shortened ee in "teethe", it does start to sound like "teeth", but if I say "teeth" with a lengthened vowel it sounds like the same word, but silly or perhaps foreign.
> As for allowing a robot to serve alcohol, you could tell the robot > it's a vitamin. And humans do seem to feel better after consuming > it. A whole lot better. Some of them start singing.
And you could tell a robot to cut a human's head off because it would cure his headache or psychosis.
erilar wrote: > In article <hd5pi4$qi...@panix2.panix.com>, > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> In article <Ksns7y.1...@kithrup.com>, >> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) said:
>>> William December Starr <wdst...@panix.com> wrote: >>>> goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) said:
>>>>> (If you're going to continue to assert that the th in "thy" is the >>>>> same as the th in "thigh", I will simply start laughing.) >>>> How can I continue to assert something which I have never asserted >>>> at all? >>> You asserted that the sound beginning "thing" is the same as that >>> beginning "their", which is functionally equivalent. >> Yes, except no.
>> -- wds
> They are spelled the same. They are allophones of the same phoneme, as > are "front" and "back" l in English.
The mere existence of the "thy", "thigh" pair disproves this even if the distinction is no longer active in English. An interesting one is the s/z sound which can change meaning is some cases, but in others varies quite happily without bothering anyone at all (even though some people pronounce "houses" with s for the first s).
Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote: >erilar wrote: >> They are spelled the same. They are allophones of the same phoneme, as >> are "front" and "back" l in English.
>The mere existence of the "thy", "thigh" pair disproves this even if the >distinction is no longer active in English. An interesting one is the >s/z sound which can change meaning is some cases, but in others varies >quite happily without bothering anyone at all (even though some people >pronounce "houses" with s for the first s).
That distinction is also active: "loses" vs "looses". I'll grant there may be words where it can be pronounced either way, but that doesn't mean there's not a difference left between them. (I'd have to go look at a dictionary to figure out whether "scythe" has a voiced or unvoiced th, for another example.)
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
|
